The problem we ran into is, even though the Camera does support RCA out, the signal is 16 x 9. There is no way to change this format. (we even contacted Canon and they said none of their newer camera's support 4 x 3).

This left us with a problem with the Web Cast software.
1. Stream at an HD format that is 16 x 9. -- This causes the bandwidth use to go higher then needed for the signal coming in.
2. Stream at SD but in 4x3 -- this caused the picture to be squished. This could have been a problem with the capture card. But it seems like the Web Cast software was effecting the picture.

The only solution we had is use an even older camera that still could do 4 x 3.

Solution: Can we have a SD format that is 16 x 9. This should fix our problem.

I'm not sure how a 16 x 9 picture would look in other TV's in the stake Center (not sure if it would cut off the sides or what).

This would help us out. It seems like its going to need to be a feature sooner, because more and more cameras can't do 4 x 3.
Thanks

There's only one format for composite. Sure you can run 16 x 9 by putting black bars at the top and bottom. Note that many church broadcasts via satellite have been like that for the past few years. Including general conference.

Have you searched the Wiki?
Try using a Google search by adding "site:tech.lds.org/wiki" to the search criteria.

I was assisting tubaloth setting up for that conference broadcast and it was a bit frustrating when I realized the pieces we had pulled together were not doing the one thing we were hoping for. That was, to point his 16x9 Canon HD camcorder at the pulpit, chorister, and/or choir, and to send a 4x3 "center cut" (edge cropped) image not only to the other building, but also into the stake center's video distribution system for the cultural hall projector and 2 overflow room TVs. The video distribution was probably our biggest reason for wanting to keep it 4x3.

As was mentioned, the camera could output either 16x9 or 4x3, but the 4x3 image was limited to either letterboxed (bars at the top and bottom), or anamorphic (16x9 squished horizontally into a 4x3 frame). Much more expensive Canon camcorders could center cut, but not their consumer line. ([smirk] Why would ANY consumer buying our product care about 4x3?? [/smirk])

So we put the 16x9 image into the Blackmagic Intensity Pro card, but it did not have the capability to "center cut" the image down to a 4x3 format either. Again, only letterbox, or anamorphic. Once again, only their more expensive cards could do that task on-the-fly, but not this one.

As tubaloth mentioned, we ended up using a lesser quality camera that could natively output 4x3 and went with that. (I know, the best choice probably would have been using a Sony EVI D70, but we were a bit limited in our operating budget.)

Fortunately, we now have 6 more months to figure out our next course of action.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

If the picture is only being projected on a video projector, you could send the squished 4:3, then set up the menu of the receiving projector(s), and change the configuration to widescreen or 16:9 video. That would unsquish the picture. The same could be done with a TV if it has the ability to change the format of the picture.

I know this is not a viable solution, only something to try. I personally think purchasing equipment to grow into, instead of already obsolite, is GREAT. Before you know it, we'll all be sending widescreen and HD. (I'm already working towards a 16:9 HD broadcast in the near future).

Your understanding of the webcast portion is (of course) correct. Our stake preference was to keep everything (at least for now) at 4x3 throughout the entire process. This is mainly due to the fact that currently we have far more native 4x3 equipment by way of modulators, projectors, and also our CRT TV's in the overflow areas than we do 16x9. That's the main reason we wanted to try to convert the camera's image to 4x3 and keep it in that format for both buildings. Eventually we will want to switch to 16x9, and we are pleased the Webcast software will accommodate that when we are ready, but we won't be ready for a while.

As a minor observation, I also noticed that having a 4x3 image of a speaker at the pulpit tended to cut out more of the sometimes distracting heads of those in the choir seated behind. Not that we don't love our choirs, it's just that it doesn't take much to take the focus (and spirit) away from the main speaker.

So we can better help you, please edit your Profile to include your general location.

Mikerowaved wrote:As a minor observation, I also noticed that having a 4x3 image of a speaker at the pulpit tended to cut out more of the sometimes distracting heads of those in the choir seated behind.

Likewise, I'm sure the 16x9 was good for the choir numbers without getting a lot of the building or foreground in the shot.